Is there not political correctness in Civ 3?

[GePap]

Given that Civ3 could not possibly include every single human event, units, civilization, form of though, form of government, so forth and so on, decisions have to be made. Of course civ3 has some political correctness (which has always, and shall always exist), it would not be able to exist otherwise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think the Germans were militaristic during the 1800 (got their ass spanked by the French

Obviously you've forgotten about the end of that century and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 .

[Spiffor]

Gah, I meant "by Napoleon".
I include the 1870 in the agressive periods of Germany. I just don't think this aggressiveness is their main trait over history.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Gah, I meant "by Napoleon".
I include the 1870 in the agressive periods of Germany. I just don't think this aggressiveness is their main trait over history.

Yep. After all, Romans easily conquered Germania but never did manage to make headway against the pesky Celts in Gaul and Britannia.

[Zero]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that Civ3 could not possibly include every single human event, units, civilization, form of though, form of government, so forth and so on, decisions have to be made. Of course civ3 has some political correctness (which has always, and shall always exist), it would not be able to exist otherwise.

Actually, it almost can... as long as it can keep adding 8 new civs until it stops making profit.

[Spiffor]

St Leo :

Originally posted by Spiffor
htere have been a few periods of history were the German populations were very warlike (Germanic wars against Rome, German conquests of Europe, agressive period 1870-1945). But I don't think the Germans are more militaristic than, say, the Arabs or the Spanish.

[St Leo]

I'd say Germans are definitely more militaristic than Arabs. Arabs were probably very militaristic only in the 600-900 period. Petty principality-wise, Arabs weren't especially impressive.

[VetLegion]

Yes, because women are a very small minority and can be adequatly represented with just one civ...

Are they not? How many civ 3 players are women? A minority obviousely. THAT is why I think there should be a Women civ. Amazones maybe

[Gatekeeper]

I've transformed the Greeks in my copy of Civ II into the Amazon Nation. Their capital, Themiscyra, is on the shores of the Sea of Azov (which itself is a small part of the Black Sea).

Gatekeeper

[HolyWarrior]

Civ 3 PC?

Yes, to some extent, but not nearly as bad as Civ 1. That game had Stalin as leader of the Russians, after all. I have no problem with the Zulus or Iroquois inclusion. If a civ you like isn't included, use the editor and download some leaderheads--I've done that for Ethiopians, Khmers, Scots, Incas, and Portugese. I'd have done the Hebrews and Dutch by now, but I'm too busy playing other games.
If there is a beef about PC, one might ask about replacing communism with fascism, an ideology that has actually worked in history. At the end of the day, it really comes down to "If I had been the designer, I woulda done this, yada yada."

[Boris Godunov]

Oh give me a break, not this again.

This has been rehashed over and over again in the Civ3 forms.

The Iroquois and Zulu each have their own unique qualities, and due to that and geographical variety, they are in. The Dutch and Portuguese et al are fine civilizations, but they are also fundamentally European ones, and since there is already an abundance of European civs, what's wrong with including some non-European ones for variety?

Nothing, and to accuse Firaxis of just bowing to PC is ludicrous. The Zulus were in the original game, after all, and the Iroquois are representative of all native North Americans, of which the Souix were in Civ2.

If you don't like non-white civs in the game, then you have your own racist **** to deal with, and we don't care.

Thanks.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
The other thing to keep in mind is that the game starts in 4000 BC so the potential for just about any group to rise to greatness is quite significant.

Actually, not really. Much of what made civs great had as much to do with geographic luck as it did anything else. You could replay history thousands of times over, and the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world, nor are the Zulus.

But since Civ3 is often played on random maps, it's a moot point there.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Civ 3 PC?

Originally posted by HolyWarrior
Yes, to some extent, but not nearly as bad as Civ 1. That game had Stalin as leader of the Russians, after all.

How was this PC? It was the opposite of PC, it was dubious taste. That's why Stalin was dropped from the next installments.

[Al B. Sure!]

Boris:

Actually, not really. Much of what made civs great had as much to do with geographic luck as it did anything else. You could replay history thousands of times over, and the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world, nor are the Zulus.

What the hell? then you are in agreement with the iniator of this thread? saying that zulus and aztecs were doomed to never get anywhere anyway so then Civilization mightaswell only have the greatest, most influential civilizations?

But before that you said you were in favour of having them in... i'm confused...

[St Leo]

I think that the Mexico reigion certainly had potential and would have eventually formed a power block with the Mississippi tribes, but Zulus were screwed by their continent. Africa has no domesticable animals and her domesticable plants are lousy.

the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world

Who would have conquered the world? Mongols with better naval luck? Her Majesty the Queen's loyal Empire? His Most Catholic Majesty's Dominion? The Fuhrer? Xerxes?